62 CHAPTER THREE
Maimonides major halachic work, the Mishneh Torah, was sharply
criticized as soon as it was published. People contested some of its rul-
ings, and criticized Maimonides for neglecting to clarify his position on
the resurrection of the dead. The sharpest criticism, however, was leveled
against Maimonides’ method: his failure to mention his sources for each
halacha, they said, would result in “having the names of the Tannaim and
Amoraim fall into oblivion”; and his omission of the disagreements be-
tween the Sages would make it licit “to neglect the study of the Talmud.”^40
Maimonides himself, while vehemently rejecting such criticism, admitted
to introducing stark innovations. He repeatedly emphasized the pioneer-
ing character of this composition “in which none in our nation had pre-
ceded me.”
There were before me Gaonim and great men who composed tracts,
in Hebrew or Arabic, to determine the rulings in specifi c matters.
But as for establishing the rulings regarding all the Talmud and all
the laws of the Torah— no one has done this before me, since the
days of our Holy Rabbi [i.e. Rabbi Judah “the Prince”] and his holy
companions.^41
In response to his detractors, Maimonides specifi cally denies the accu-
sation that he intended to demote the study of the Talmud,^42 and offered
several explanations for composing the Code in this form. He says that
he meant the Code to serve only as a digest for those who cannot fathom
the Talmudic discussion;^43 he also says that he omitted the names of indi-
vidual scholars in order to stress the universal agreement on fi nal rulings,
so as to counterbalance Karaite claims that it is the fruit of individual
whims.^44 He even mentions his wish to prepare an aide-mémoire for his
old age.^45 There can be no doubt, however, that these were only excuses
(and some of them, rather feeble excuses at that). As Maimonides him-
self forcefully and repeatedly declares, the composition of the Code was
a calculated decision on his part to assemble disparate rulings and to
present them in a fi nite form “succinctly and clearly, so that all the Oral
práctica del precepto de al- amr bi- l-maruf wa- l-nahyan al- munkar en la hagiografía
magrhebí,” Al-Qantara 13 (1992): 156; idem, Messianism and Puritanical Reform, 176.
(^40) “Epistle to Rabbi Phinehas the Judge,” Epistles, 439. On Rabbi Phinehas ben Meshul-
lam, the judge of Alexandria, and on this epistle, see I. Twersky, Introduction to the Code
of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven and London, 1980), 30– 37.
(^41) “Epistle to Rabbi Phinehas,” 439– 40 (emphasis added).
(^42) Ibid., 439; Twersky, Introduction to the Code, 37.
(^43) “Epistle to Rabbi Phinehas,” Epistles, 439.
(^44) Ibid.,Epistles, 4. On the anti- Karaite polemical element in the Mishneh Torah, see So-
loveitchik, “Mishneh Torah: Polemic and Art,” 329– 32.
(^45) “Letter to Joseph Ibn Shimon,” Epistles, 293, 330– 31; and see Twersky, Introduction to
the Code, 42.